T O P
[deleted]

Don’t do that, don’t give me hope


Kaiser-Wilhelm-II_

If the monarchy was restored it would probably be Wilhelm III because of the II destroyed his image. If the monarchy restored then they would have to deal with the communist party in Germany at the time which would still be widely popular and the german empire would try and expand once again where I can't tell what happens.


[deleted]

[удалено]


EmperorBarbarossa

11 years is nothing? I bet the most monarchs in the history would literally kill someone to rule for so long.


Enigmacloth

**Cries in Maximilian**


_Tim_the_good

The German Empire would have gained support from Austria Hungary, the Russian Empire, Sweden-Norway and Denmark though


Kaiser-Wilhelm-II_

Possibly but the Russian empire would've collapsed and became the soviet union


_Tim_the_good

Not if the tsar would have managed his estates in a more organized way and if he had succeeded in the de-industrialization of Russia.


Kaiser-Wilhelm-II_

But it's after ww1 meaning the tsar and the faimly is dead


_Tim_the_good

[nope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Nicholas_Romanov#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DHe_is_also_known_as%2CRomanoff%2C_and_Prince_Nikolai_Romanov.?wprov=sfla1)


Kaiser-Wilhelm-II_

Huh it seems there are some alive but russia still wouldn't be to its monarchy because there was a very anti tsar presence in russia at the time but thank you for showing me something interesting


hoennzollern

Is monarchism incompatible with industrialization?


_Tim_the_good

Proper monarchism yes Weak monarchism* no *Letting constitutions and lazy faffing burghs tramble the monarch's ancestral work let alone the work of all the estates; is weak.


hoennzollern

What about a crown corporation


_Tim_the_good

A bit like the east India company? Well for me big cities thus industrial areas of pollution represents sin and pollution that only push the deadly temptation of a man (and woman at that) of gambling, prostitution, drinking etc; better stay in your small village were you can sleep safe from all that.


riverkelpie

wait, drinking doesn’t happen in small villages?


_Tim_the_good

Not at an excessive level and not at the same scale


Ok_Squirrel259

German expansion would only be a thing if Germany conquered Poland, Finland and the Baltic States to establish Puppet States that Germany can use as a buffer states to protect itself from communists.


AnteBellum123

Average HOI4 player


khalast_6669

It's not clear to me. Are you saying that if the empire was restored it should have conquered Poland, Finland and the Baltic states to protect itself from the communists?


Ok_Squirrel259

Yes but Imperial Germany would establish regimes that Germany can back economically, Politically and Militarily as a way to use them as buffer states against the Soviets and prevent Germany from having direct borders with the Soviets if the Soviets do desire to invade those regions.


khalast_6669

Have you literally learnt nothing from WWI and WWII?


Ok_Squirrel259

Look man the Soviets and Germans were both international outcasts. However Imperial Germany would not befriend the Soviets because during the Russian civil war Germany started to back Non-Russian ethnic nationalists who were enemies of the Soviets. Imperial Germany would try to have economic, political and military influence over the nations it originally gained from the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland) and try to establish strong regimes Nationalist and Pro-German regimes without conquering them and starting a war and save itself from the threat of Communism.


khalast_6669

That treaty was never implemented. So there is no German claim over those territories. Imperial Germany could have tried to gain influence... After all, that's how it works, even today. But conquering would have led to WW2.


Ok_Squirrel259

And here is how Germany might get influence over those territories. Poland: Germany might back a Monarchist movement in Poland to establish a Polish monarchy that could unify Poland which was divided due to the western, southern and eastern regions of Poland being economically and culturally different which resulted in the Polish Republic being weak and unstable. The man who would be chosen as monarch of Poland would be Prince Janusz Franciszek Radziwiłł who is a native Polish nobleman and Politician. Lithuania: Germany would influence the Nationalist dictator of Lithuania, Antanas Smetona to restore the monarchy of Lithuania as a way to strengthen his Nationalist Dictatorship's legitimacy over Lithuania and keep the nation unified. The King of Lithuania would be Karl Gero, Duke of Urach. Latvia: Germany would convince Kārlis Ulmanis, the Nationalist dictator of Latvia to establish a monarchy that could strengthen his Nationalist Dictatorship's legitimacy over Latvia and keep the nation unified. The King of Latvia would be Karl von Biron. Estonia: Germany would back the Vaps Movement in Estonia and establish a monarchy in Estonia as a way to legitimize their regime as the official government of Estonia. The King of Estonia would be Duke Adolf Friedrich Albrecht Heinrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Finland:. Germany would back the Lapua Movement and establish a monarchy in Finland as a way to legitimize the regime of the Lapua Movement as the official government of Finland. The Monarch of Finland would be Frederick Charles Louis Constantine, Prince and Landgrave of Hesse.


khalast_6669

Yeah... I mean man, it is good to fantasize about the past. Because of course what Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Finnish people think doesn't matter. Not a bit. And of course all those dictators were eager to establish monarchies. Dammit, it's just an accident in history they didn't do it. What were they thinking about? And of course the rest of the countries would have been remained neutral seeing Germany expand its influence. Yep, keep at it.


Ok_Squirrel259

I agree, however that might result in the Soviets getting paranoid about Germany somehow waging war against them to restore the Tsars. This paranoia would cause Stalin to behave more like a maniac tyrant which means more purges and that could cause more resistance movements in the Soviet Union. Germany could also convince Austrian nationalists to restore the Austrian monarchy as a way to legitimize their rule over Austria instead of going Fascist and Germany could install the Hohenburgs (descendants of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) as monarchs of Czechoslovakia as a way to stabilize the country economically and politically. However that could cause instability within the Balkans and cause tense relations with Italy and Yugoslavia.


CatholicSaint

Dude, real life doesn't work like that. This isn't hoi4 where you just click a button and things magically happen. Back them how? By clicking the influence button and spending diplomatic points? lol


Ok_Squirrel259

Not really, Germany would give equipment to their armies and train their armies. The Germans would also help them create Anti-Communist Propaganda and expose the negatives of communism to society.


----Poseidon---

Honestly the Monarchy should have been restored after the defeat of the Nazis. Especially if Wilhelm ii lived that long


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kaiser-Wilhelm-II_

To be honest I don't really know since the only chance of the monarchy return in Germany was going to fail either by communists or the one that won the nazis


fisch-boi

unlikely, both were declared war criminals by the Entente


Human_Being2851

By 1933 it was too little too late for that to ever happen. German society under Weimar was greatly depressed because of WW1 reparations. In my opinion the German monarchs should've never abdicated to begin with.


Baileaf11

Seeing how the army and most of the people hated Wilhelm II during and after ww1 I think for Wilhelm’s safety he should’ve abdicated


Human_Being2851

Fair enough but the crown should've passed to the heir. The monarchy didn't need to end entirely.


Baileaf11

If it did pass to Wilhelm’s son he would’ve just shared the same fate as Wilhelm if he stayed in power (which is death if I hadn’t implied that already)


Human_Being2851

I disagree. Most of the discontent expressed by the German public was towards Wilhelm II himself not towards the monarchy as a whole. I believe the monarchy could've been preserved if the politicians weren't so haphazard in attempting to appease the USA for fear of harsh reparations - which occurred anyway. From what I understand, there was no major push from either the USA or the Allies to end the German monarchy in the first place, merely an abdication of its Emperor. Neither was there a huge revolution in Germany to end the monarchy despite the fact that they had lost the war. An abdication of Wilhem II would've sufficed but the German politicians panicked and went too far by ending the monarchy entirely.


Baileaf11

Think about it though, let’s say Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicates to his son, the German people already would dislike the monarchy since they played one of the big parts in ww1 which Germany lost and with hyperinflation causing mass starvation and unemployment while the new Kaiser still gets luxury food and a good income, it would most likely lead to a situation similar to the Russian revolution where the people rise up and a charismatic leader takes power and would most likely kill the new Kaiser and his family And the US helped pay German reparations and were very helpful to the Weimar Republic (see the Dawes plan for more info)


Human_Being2851

I have no doubt many Germans would and did dislike the monarchy but you have to understand, even then Germany wasn't an absolute monarchy. Most Germans understood that the military generals and politicians were just as much, if not, more to blame for the loss of the war than the Kaiser. However since Kaiser Wilhem II now represented a defeated Germany, he had to go. The new Kaiser would've done far more than any politician did during the aftermath of WWI to quell resentment and anger of the German people and likely would've only served a ceremonial role as Kaiser similar to the UK's monarchy. He would have had to unite the country as best he could to inspire hope and guidance in time of despair. The Germans were a very proud and nationalistic people, having their monarchy removed and seeing the collapse of their empire that was barely 50 years old, was incredibly humiliating for them. With the continued existence of its monarchy and Empire, albeit with less territory, it would've maintained some level of pride for the German folk. We may not have seen the ultra-nationalist support for the Nazis. There were so many unique and differing factors that contributed to the demise of the Romanovs that I don't think it would be fair to even compare the situation in Russia to that of Germany because the societies were very different. I see no compelling indication following Germany's defeat in WWI that the German folk sort out to end their monarchy. If there had been a revolution that toppled the monarchy then that would be a sure indication that Germans no longer wanted their monarchy however that did not happen it happened because the politicians thought it was a good idea not the people. Lastly I want to add that we shouldn't forget that it was the end of German Empire that triggered the death of monarchy in Europe in the 20th century. Had Germany remained a monarchy we likely would've had many more European monarchies still in existence.


Ok_Squirrel259

And Central and Eastern Europe would not be victims of Communist aggression.


Human_Being2851

Quite possibly. WWII ultimately made the USSR stronger, without WWII, the Soviet Union likely would've never made it so deep into central and Eastern Europe. The only countries that won WWII was the USA and the USSR, every other country involved whether allied or axis ultimately lost.


Ok_Squirrel259

I know, because without them the war would have been lost. However the Soviets would lose a three front war because Germany isn't the only nation that hates the Soviets because Iran and Japan also hate the Soviets.


Anonman20

Well Wilson did very much hate the monarchy and wanted it gone, France and Britain didn't care much. They wanted the repetitions and military restrictions.


Ok_Squirrel259

Dude of course he did because he's the leader of the VERY NATION THAT HATES THE INSTITUTION OF MONARCHY TOTAL. Otherwise if Teddy were president he would allow the German monarchy to still remain the ruling government of Germany, except the Kaiser would be a Figurehead of a constitutional monarchy with a British style Parliamentary system.


Ok_Squirrel259

Agreed, but it's always a good idea to appease the US because the US will do anything to protect its "National Security interests".


Ok_Squirrel259

I know but there were movements that advocated for their restoration.


[deleted]

The good ending


Brynden-Black-Fish

The world would be a better place.


KingMarziUteI

The world would be a better place.


Ok_Squirrel259

And Communism would be internationally hated instead of Nationalism.


Tospki

Might of avoided one of the largest conflicts in history


Ok_Squirrel259

Agreed


Aun_El_Zen

The scenario I came up with is if most of the non-nazi aligned paramilitaries (Stahlhelm, Reichsbanner, Eiserne Front) see which way the wind is blowing and in exchange for a constitutional system, act to wipe out as much of the party leadership as possible as a united front. If the plot succeeds, the NSDAP is banned and the SPD leads a coalition interim government. The monarchy is restored to appease the right-wing of the coalition in preparation for fresh elections. Because much of the Hohenzollern family aligned itself with the nazis, and because Wilhelm II would be considered a risk given international opinions on him, Victoria Louise would be the best choice for a new monarch.


Ok_Squirrel259

Or Wilhelm III.


Aun_El_Zen

He supported Hitler before the night of long knives.


JadenInTheH00D

Ww2 would be less deadly


Ok_Squirrel259

It would only make World War II a Germany, Iran and Japan vs the Soviet Union conflict.


Gamermaper

Why


Ok_Squirrel259

Imperial Germany would try to have economic, political and military influence over the nations it originally gained from the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland) and try to establish strong regimes Nationalist and Pro-German regimes without conquering them and starting a war and save itself from the threat of Communism. This would probably result in Stalin getting paranoid of Germany potentially invading the USSR itself and restoring the Tsars as rulers of Russia. This paranoia results in Stalin unleashing more purges upon Soviet Society and even more rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union which causes poor people to riot against Stalin and the Soviet Union government. The Soviet Union would declare war on Germany and they would try to invade the buffer states. This would get the attention of Iran and Japan whom Germany would partner up with in order to help Germany wage war against the Soviets. Iran would get involved in order to get Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan as territory of Iran and conquer Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and establish buffer states between Iran itself and the Soviet Union. Japan would get involved as they would desire to conquer Siberia and get its oil rich lands to fuel Japan's navy. The war would be an easy victory as the Soviets would have to fight a three front war with three enemies.


Gamermaper

what the hell


Sea_Nectarine4162

One stupid decision can condemn a dynasty. Nice one Wilhelm 🙄


Ok_Squirrel259

At least it's better than the Nazis.


Sea_Nectarine4162

Anything is better than the nazis.


misterbigboy_628

Even the Soviets?


Sea_Nectarine4162

Another murderous authoritarian regime, really what is the difference


CleansingFlame

The Soviets were pretty terrible, but only Stalin rivalled Hitler's level of evil, and even he fell short.


EmperorBod

How did he fall short?


General-Buffett

Stalin killed around 23 million, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, alongside 11 million others, unless you’re counting World War II casualties as *entirely* Hitler’s fault, Stalin was worse than Hitler


GameyRaccoon

What one decision? The blank cheque? Wilhelm II's Anglophobia and his insistence on the high seas fleet and thus souring relations with a historical ally? Souring relations with his other cousin in Russia? Insisting on Schlieffen and dragging Britain into a pointless war he had several chances to deescalate? Firing Otto von Bismarck, one of Europe's (and probably Germany's all-time) greatest political thinkers at the time, because "out with the old in with the new?" Was it being an absolute monarch in a time when constitutionalism was replacing absolutism? Was it unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking civilian ships from neutral countries? Was it after being called out for attacking neutral American ships, promptly sending a telegram to Mexico asking them to invade America? Thus bringing America into the war, ensuring defeat?


Sea_Nectarine4162

Chill mate I agree with you. His decision to generally be a dick and start a war he couldn’t finish. I know about all those, I just wasn’t really intending to get into a specific debate about his failures. Just a general comment about his idiocy.


GameyRaccoon

Well, the war was actually started by Serbia and Austria. Wilhelm II only turned it from another Balkan war to a world war between all the great powers of the world. Also my bad, it seemed like you were a Hohenzollern apologist, like so many here are.


Sea_Nectarine4162

I respect your knowledge. It reminds me of GCSE history, good memories lol. Wilhelm II was a moron. At least Nicholas II had some redeeming personal qualities, Wilhelm Just seemed very insecure. I may be a Windsor apologist but definitely not a Hohenzollern one. They deserve everything they got.


CleansingFlame

Serbia lit the spark, but IMO the warhawks in the Austrian government were chiefly responsible. A lot of blame all around, though.


GameyRaccoon

That's part of what makes WW1 a tragedy in ways WW2 isn't. It's really not good versus evil, freedom versus oppression. It's nationalism versus nationalism, brother killing brother.


Ok_Squirrel259

He didn't start the war, the war happened because all the nations of Europe were dominated by nationalists who wanted to wage war against each other as they had many desires. - France wanted to win a war against Germany to get back Alsace-Lorraine which they lost during the Franco Prussian War. - Germany wanted to destroy it's enemies and become the most powerful nation in the world in order to secure their colonial interests. - Britain wanted to destroy Germany whom they saw as a threat to their colonial interests as an Empire. - Russia was desperate for a victory after having to suffer a humiliating defeat by Japan. - Austria-Hungary desired to destroy Serbia because Austria-Hungary saw Serbia as a threat to their interests in the Balkans. - Romania wanted to wage war with Austria-Hungary to get Transylvania which was populated by Romanians. - Serbia wanted to wage war against Austria-Hungary in order to annex the regions of the Empire that have an ethnic majority of Serbians. - Bulgaria wanted to wage war against Serbia for respecting the interests of Greece. - The Ottomans wanted to wage war against Italy in order to get Libya back. - Italy wanted to wage war against Austria-Hungary in order to get the regions of the Empire that have an ethnic majority of Italians.


JacqueMorrison

He was a stubborn moron, but at least he lived to see the results of his actions.


TheGreatMightyLeffe

Ah, yes, the neutral American ships delivering supplies that at the time basically propped up the entire British war effort.


GameyRaccoon

Are you justifying unrestricted submarine warfare?


TheGreatMightyLeffe

Not at all, sinking civilian vessels is an act of piracy. But I also find it hard to call an armed ship carrying weapons or ammunition in an active war zone "a civilian vessel".


GameyRaccoon

The Lusitania WAS a civilian vessel and it was in international waters.


TheGreatMightyLeffe

The British government admitted that she was carrying ammunition, and she had cannon mounts on her deck, it's impossible to prove whether she had the cannons mounted on that particular journey as the wreck is so damaged after so many years underwater in an unprotected place. But the German navy had warned Cunard, the US government and the US public that they considered the waters off the coast of the British isles a war zone, as that was the supply route into Britain. And don't pretend like there weren't convoys of armed vessels carrying military supplies to Britain from the US throughout the war.


GameyRaccoon

Well yeah, but they weren't at war with the US so they really shouldn't be killing American citizens.


TheGreatMightyLeffe

I would normally agree with that, I just think in the case of convoys, I'd consider it more like volunteers. Considering they're actively participating in the war effort of a belligerent country, they're (in my opinion) not exactly just civilian merchant vessels. I also believe the fact that the US and UK decided to start arming those convoys when the Germans were capturing too many is pretty telling as far as how neutral those ships were. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of either side, I just feel like it's a little disingenuous to pretend like it was unarmed cargo boats carrying canned tuna and socks that were getting torpedoed. And the U boat blockade instated when Germany paused unrestricted submarine warfare where they'd stop a convoy, send a search party aboard and see if it was carrying military or civilian cargo and sink all with military cargo after evacuating, it was a good system. Well, until the convoys didn't stop, or sank the U boats when they surfaced to search the convoys. It's really a matter of both sides being in the wrong.


GameyRaccoon

I mean its the same with chemical weapons, sure the Germans started it, but the entente used them too


CherryBomb174

Or what if they made a constitutional monarchy, with him as a figure head only.


misinfo-spreader

though it probably would have been better, the nazis being the “bad guys” in WW2 was important in showing the world how destructive of an ideology fascism was/is


Ok_Squirrel259

Yes, but with Imperial Germany as ruler of Germany instead of the Nazis taking power, Communism would be seen as the big bad ideology.


[deleted]

What makes you think a second German Empire wouldn't have gone to war


Ok_Squirrel259

The German Empire would be smarter than the first Empire and Hitler in OTL as they would only fund and back a bunch of Nationalist Anti-Communist movements in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland.


[deleted]

What is your source for this? What makes you think they wouldn't try to retake Poland?


Ok_Squirrel259

The German Empire would not go to war and only back Nationalist Anti-Communist movements in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland because waging war against them would only make those countries lean towards the Soviets as they would see Germany as an aggressor. Germany would prefer to help these Nationalist Anti-Communist movements successfully take over the governments of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland and use them to establish Pro-German monarchies that would be buffer states between Germany and the Soviets. The Pro-German Polish monarchy would probably allow a referendum in the city of Danzig, the German inhabitants of the Polish corridor and other German populated territories of Poland would join Germany or remain in Poland.


djspacepope

Literally the exact same outcome. You realize hitlers trick was to get people to feel like they democratically chose their new sovereign. But he was an infallible leader, a king, by any other name. So the status quo would be "restored", of the old empire. All fascists are doing is creating a status quo system which recaptures the "glory" of the old empire.


AtyaYammamoto

probably tbh you are right. The Bavarian Royals wouldve been a far better choice. Anti Nazi, etc.


Ok_Squirrel259

They would but that would piss off the protestant majority of Germany who might view the Bavarian dominated monarchy as an religious apartheid monarchy.


Ok_Squirrel259

I know how you feel, but Wilhelm III might be smarter than his old man in making sure Germany is able to protect itself and play nice with the allies. Hitler only did that because he was a retarded psycho who was obsessed with trying to recapture the "glory of the old Empire" to legitimize his Nazi regime as the sole Nationalist Party of Germany and weaken the influence of the Monarchists as Hitler wanted his Empire to be the "Third Reich" as he believed the "Monarchy was a weak regime that gave up power as the regime of Germany and allowed a Failed Republic to rule Germany and cause the country misfortune". The Monarchy under Wilhelm III would be smarter than Hitler in defending themselves from communists, by backing nationalist movements in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland and convince them to establish monarchs as their heads of state in order to legitimize their rule over those countries. Instead of Anschluss, Germany would back Austrian nationalists and convince them to restore the Habsburg Dynasty as the monarchs of Austria. Instead of annexing Czechoslovakia to get the Sudetenland, Germany would establish a Czechoslovak monarchy ruled by the Hohenburgs (descendants of Franz Ferdinand) as monarchs and hope they keep Czechoslovakia unified as a nation.


Itzska08

>The Allies >Anschluss These two terms have literally never been used outside of hoi4. The world doesn't work like that.


Ok_Squirrel259

What I mean by the Allies, I mean Britain and France. The idea of an Anschluss (a united Austria and Germany that would form a "Greater Germany") began after the unification of Germany excluded Austria and the German Austrians from the Prussian-dominated German Empire in 1871. Following the end of World War I with the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1918, the newly formed Republic of German-Austria attempted to form a union with Germany, but the Treaty of Saint Germain (10 September 1919) and the Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919) forbade both the union and the continued use of the name "German-Austria" (Deutschösterreich); and stripped Austria of some of its territories, such as the Sudetenland. Prior to the Anschluss, there had been strong support in both Austria and Germany for unification of the two countries. In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy—with Austria left as a broken remnant, deprived of most of the territories it ruled for centuries and undergoing a severe economic crisis—the idea of unity with Germany seemed attractive also to many citizens of the political left and center. But after 1933, when Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, desire for unification could be identified with the Nazis, for whom it was an integral part of the Nazi "Heim ins Reich" concept, which sought to incorporate as many Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans outside Germany) as possible into a "Greater Germany". Nazi Germany's agents cultivated pro-unification tendencies in Austria, and sought to undermine the Austrian government, which was controlled by the Austrofascist Fatherland Front. During an attempted coup in 1934, Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss was assassinated by Austrian Nazis. The defeat of the coup prompted many leading Austrian Nazis to go into exile in Germany, where they continued their efforts for unification of the two countries. In early 1938, under increasing pressure from pro-unification activists, Austrian chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg announced that there would be a referendum on a possible union with Germany versus maintaining Austria's sovereignty to be held on 13 March. Portraying this as defying the popular will in Austria and Germany, Hitler threatened an invasion and secretly pressured Schuschnigg to resign. A day before the planned referendum, on 12 March, the German Wehrmacht crossed the border into Austria, unopposed by the Austrian military. A plebiscite (Result: 99.71%) was held on the 10th of April, where the German Wehrmacht forced the Austrian population to vote for the annexation of Austria to Germany. Someone who voted against the annexation could lose their job or even face death as punishment.


No_Escape8865

Me who's writing an alt history about this


Ok_Squirrel259

IDK, but I hope someone does because I feel like I would do a good job with such a series. I was influenced in creating a scenario like this after watching a Mr. Z video covering the topic.


No_Escape8865

Well for the last 4 years I have been writing, editing and revising about if the Kaiserreich was restored and am near publishing. I hope the Monarchist and Alt History community will enjoy it when it comes out


Ok_Squirrel259

If you do then I suggest that you have the newly restored German monarchy back Nationalist Anti-Communist movements in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland. The reason I say this is because a newly restored German monarchy would logically do that to create buffer states between Germany itself and the Soviet. And here is how they would logically do that. Poland: Germany might back a Monarchist movement in Poland to establish a Polish monarchy that could unify Poland which was divided due to the western, southern and eastern regions of Poland being economically and culturally different which resulted in the Polish Republic being weak and unstable. The man who would be chosen as monarch of Poland would be Prince Janusz Franciszek Radziwiłł who is a native Polish nobleman and Politician. Lithuania: Germany would influence the Nationalist dictator of Lithuania, Antanas Smetona to restore the monarchy of Lithuania as a way to strengthen his Nationalist Dictatorship's legitimacy over Lithuania and keep the nation unified. The King of Lithuania would be Karl Gero, Duke of Urach. Latvia: Germany would convince Kārlis Ulmanis, the Nationalist dictator of Latvia to establish a monarchy that could strengthen his Nationalist Dictatorship's legitimacy over Latvia and keep the nation unified. The King of Latvia would be Karl von Biron. Estonia: Germany would back the Vaps Movement in Estonia and establish a monarchy in Estonia as a way to legitimize their regime as the official government of Estonia. The King of Estonia would be Duke Adolf Friedrich Albrecht Heinrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Finland:. Germany would back the Lapua Movement and establish a monarchy in Finland as a way to legitimize the regime of the Lapua Movement as the official government of Finland. The Monarch of Finland would be Frederick Charles Louis Constantine, Prince and Landgrave of Hesse.


No_Escape8865

I did the Finland one in the narrative. BTW I set the main story in 2018, long after the Germans accidentally created a Reactionary world order. I had Germany Remilitarize a decade before Hitler would under the Kaiser and effectively a loyalist Military Government while France and the Republic of Poland formed an alliance against Germany. Because of German Remilitarization and the economic alliance between the SPD Weimar Regime Stalin seeks to establish his strategic position years earlier. He invades the Baltics and starts a Second Polish Soviet War. France gets destabilized by going to war with the USSR in defense of Poland and with a large portion of the French Army in Poland, France breaks out in a Red Revolution and the Germans have to intervene to bring peace back to Poland and evacuate the populations of the Baltics. It sounds waky I know but I essentially have to sacrifice the Baltics to give the rest of Europe a true Red Scare to turn a blind eye to German Militarization.


Ok_Squirrel259

And Germany would probably get Iran and Japan to help it wage war against the Soviet Union.


No_Escape8865

Iran yes. Japan No, because they were fighting China at the time


Ok_Squirrel259

They definitely would because China would be causing trouble for Japan especially after Japan conquering Manchuria and creating a puppet Kingdom who is ruled by a monarch who was the Last Emperor of Qing Dynasty China.


No_Escape8865

Only this time the Japanese win and restore Puyi as their puppet Emperor of China while they occupy the trade cities on the coast


Ok_Squirrel259

They might not do that because Japan had other plans with the government. They were going to originally establish a Chinese Empire ruled by Kung Te-cheng as Emperor, but he neglected.


Hyena331

Wilhelm the second shouldn't be restored. Wilhelm the 3rd or Victoria


Ok_Squirrel259

Wilhelm III


undyingkoschei

Then the Nazis probably would have tried to take over via a coup or something, I imagine.


El_Rey658

The Hohenzollerns were really hoping for a restoration of the Monarchy when the Nazis came to power, once they saw that the Nazis had other ideas and ambitions, hope was lost.


RepostSleuthBot

Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/fp12kf) on 2020-03-25 90.62% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/lashi8) on 2021-02-02 100.0% match Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "v6wvf2", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=v6wvf2&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 338,702,123 | **Search Time:** 1.38338s


Zitronenfalter78

Depends on the type of monarchy


cheezboigaprosecutor

I probably don't know enough to answer the question itself per se but I don't think restoring the monarchy with Wilhelm specifically would have been a good thing. I say this because he was very much a slithering coward. Most people know that he supposedly said after hearing of the antisemitic Kristallnacht riots perpetrated by the Nazis he said something to the effect of "For the first time I am ashamed to be a German" but that sure as hell didn't stop him from begging Hitler to reinstate him during World War II. Even worse were the antisemitic temper tantrums he threw after losing WWI in which he said Jews couldn't be patriots despite the valiant sacrifices of many German Jews during the War, compared them to parasitical insects, accused them of orchestrating an international conspiracy against him with the English, the French, and the Russian Communists, referred to them devil worshippers, and called for mob violence and genocide against them (All that and more can be seen [here](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor)). He was a coward's coward, quick to claim the glory of a battle won but always passing the buck when the shit hit the fan and in the process watering the rotten weed from which the demented fascist ideology that supposedly made him "ashamed to be a German" sprouted from. After that he didn't deserve to be Emperor, not because he lost the War but rather because he was too busy playing the blame game to reflect on his own role in the ordeal.


Ok_Squirrel259

His son Crown Prince Wilhelm would have been Emperor if the German Monarchy was restored.


cheezboigaprosecutor

My bad, I was a bit confused based on the photo attached to the post.


Ok_Squirrel259

It's okay, however it depends.


Hydro1Gammer

What I imagine is after WWI the Kaiser doesn’t resign, however his influence is damaged so the Reichstag uses the opportunity to make a constitutional monarchy democracy.


Ok_Squirrel259

And the British help them establish a British Style Constitutional Monarchy that practices democracy in order to help them appease Wilson and the US.


Hydro1Gammer

Probably, I could see a reason why Britain may help the monarchy. One could be that to restrict communism and possibly for family reasons since George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II are cousins (although family relation wouldn’t be good enough on its own).


Ok_Squirrel259

And Britain would also gain the territories that Germany gained from the Brest-Litovsk Treaty as mandates.


Hydro1Gammer

Maybe, don’t know if it would go that far. Something interesting though is that the Baltics and Poland could become monarchies possibly influenced by Britain if Britain was willing to (which isn’t insane to think of if Britain was willing to keep Kaiser Wilhelm II, or possibly Wilhelm III, on the throne).


Ok_Squirrel259

If they did, then this is how I think it would probably go. Poland as a British mandate would be ruled by Archduke Charles Stephen of Austria who was a possible candidate for the Polish Throne due to him being a fluent Polish speaker and two of his daughters were married to Polish princes belonging to the noble houses of Radziwill and Czartoryski. Lithuania as a British mandate would be ruled by King [Mindaugas II](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Karl,_Duke_of_Urach) because he was elected as King of Lithuania by the Lithuanian people themselves. The Duchy of Courland and Semgalia as a British mandate would be renamed the Grand Duchy of Courland and the monarch would be Gustav von Biron who at the time was the head of the royal House of Biron (the ruling family of the original Duchy of Courland and Semgalia). Latvia and Estonia as British mandates would merge into a nation known as the United Livonian Duchies (a Dual Monarchy ruled by a Grand Duke who rules the nation as Duke of Latvia and Duke of Estonia). The Grand Duke would be [Lord Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma). Finland as a British mandate would be a Kingdom ruled by [Frederick II](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Frederick_Charles_of_Hesse) who was elected by the Finnish people to be King of Finland.


Hydro1Gammer

What a better timeline that sounds like. You should post something like this on that alternate history subreddit, sounds like an interesting topic. Unfortunately we are stuck with unstable republics (excluding Germany and Finland since they doing better than Poland and the Baltics).


Ok_Squirrel259

Germany's Republic is pretty stable, except for the Neo-Nazi riots which are a ridiculous joke. Finland is fine, however due to Russian stupidity (the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin being a retarded psychopath) Finland fears of a Russian invasion and it desires to join NATO.


Eisenkoenig42

r/EnoughSonderwegSpam contains several outtakes of books who dealt with the history of German democracy which also includes the role of the monarchy. It can provide some useful insights if you want


TsarBladovski

A more successful Anti-Comintern pact / German-Polish alliance against the USSR, which would be the only bad guy in this timeline's Europe. A common enemy that eases tensions between all other European nations. One possibility would Poland ceding a few minor territories. Anything more than Danzig and Upper Silesia would be too ambitious for the Germans, despite what HOI4 wehraboos might tell you. In exchange Germany would help Poland in a war with the soviets to fulfill Polands goal of a Slavic Federation of itself, Belarus and Ukraine. Otherwise, I think Germany's monarchist government would pressure Horthy to allow Karl/Otto (depending on which year we're in) to return to the Hungarian Throne. The Austrian people would likely want to join Germany rather than reuniting with Hungary, which would make the Habsburg heir both Grand-Duke of Austria and King of Hungary. Any further restructuring of Europe is unlikely, with the exception of a possible Italo-Bulgarian invasion of Yugoslavia. For all of this to even be possible, Germany's relations with the Entente powers would have to be mended. France would be really difficult, if not even impossible. But Britain and America could easily be done since they focus more on protecting Europe from the Soviets, rather than conquering it themselves.


Ok_Squirrel259

Post World War I Poland was unstable due to West Poland, East Poland and South Poland all having economic and cultural differences that made it hard for Poland to function as a proper nation. The reason I say this is because the Western and Southern portions of Poland (previously owned by Prussia, Germany and Austria) were prosperous whereas the eastern portion of Poland (owned by Russia) was an impoverished region. Poland would only cede Danzig and Upper Silesia to Germany if Germany helps Poland establish a government that would make Poland more stable as a nation and unify the nation and its disparate economic regions. Germany would obviously make the government a monarchy and make the monarch [Janusz Franciszek Radziwiłł ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Radziwi%C5%82%C5%82_(1880%E2%80%931967)) who is a Polish Prince and Nobleman. The newly established Kingdom of Poland ruled by Janusz Franciszek Radziwiłł as John IV of Poland would unify the disparate economic regions of Poland and unify the nation into a strong nation that could have the possibility of getting Belarus and Ukraine in order to establish a Slavic Empire ruled by John IV as King. Germany would also back Nationalist Anti-Communist movements in the Baltic States and Finland in order to create constitutional monarchies with parliaments dominated by those Nationalist Anti-Communist factions. The Germans would instead install Charles I/Otto I (depending on the year) as monarch of Austria instead of Hungary and they would convince Horthy to allow Archduke Joseph August of Austria to become King of Hungary. Germany would also make Maximilian, Duke von Hohenberg King of Czechoslovakia as a way to unify the nation and try to prevent it from fracturing. As for the Entente Powers, Britain and America won't back Germany against the Soviets. America won't do it because of these reasons. One, they are not interested in affairs with Europe and they never were after World War I as there were many domestic issues. Two they have no desire to help Germany wage war against the Soviets because they desire to have the Soviets as allies in stopping Japanese expansion into mainland Asia. Britain won't do it because the devastation caused by World War I and colonial instability with independence movements had made Britain at the time reluctant in going into another war. France would not aid Germany in fighting the Soviet Union because France itself at the time had internal instability due to radicalism being a thing.


Brick-head_

i think WW II likely wouldn't have happened if that was the case, since the german empire did not want to wage war at all


FormerQueenOfEngland

The anthem would be better


ArisenHemloc

Assumption here, btw, is that Hitler doesn't get the Enabling act, either by Hindenburg arresting him and gaining dictatorial powers, or by Hindenburg appointing another Chancellor. 1933 is the latest this can occur, because afterwards, the SA was purged and the military was on side. Remember: The Night of the Long Knives was when the military supported Hitler for Purging the Paramilitaries (minus the SS). The Military mostly Pro-Kaiser. 1 - Wilhelm III would be Kaiser, not Kaiser Wilhelm II, due to the latter's poor international and domestic popularity (WWI failure) 2 - The German Empire would likely absorb Austria, due to the latter's desire to unify. Even without the rigged referendum by the Nazi's, the only reason Austria wasn't part of Germany was because the Treaty of Versailles banned it. Austrians at the time were partial to the idea for their own security. 3 - Reclamation of their former German territories would be high on the priority list, as well as remilitarization. However, I suspect they'd have not wanted to annex Bohemia/Czechoslovakia, or Poland. Germany was stable due to being mostly mono-cultural. 4 - At this point, Germany would likely not see a point to revive it's colonial empire, due to losing it all. They'd seek to use Poland as a buffer between them and the USSR, and prepare to fight the Soviets. The Emperor and his family were deeply anti-Communist, and so was the military. 5 - A possible alliance between them and Britain to contain Stalin and the USSR, as Chamberlain even saw the Nazi's as a potential tool against the USSR in the future (a tool that bit his hand before it could be realized). Ultimately, the most important factor: No Holocaust. The Kaisers were mildly anti-Semitic, but they'd not go out of their way to gas the Jews. And you'd likely have an economic and military European Power House to counter the Soviets. WWII would be likely Germany vs the USSR and parts of Eastern Europe.


idevenkmyname

Germany never would've taken France. They would be bogged down forever and then lose another war anyways. Then the Nazis wouldve taken power.


Ok_Squirrel259

I think Imperial Germany would instead of that try to have economic, political and military influence over the nations it originally gained from the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland) and try to establish strong regimes Nationalist and Pro-German regimes without conquering them and starting a war and save itself from the threat of Communism.


idevenkmyname

Ok tbh I took the question as a joke so I gave a joke answer. No one in Germany would bring back the monarchy. But to take the hypothetical more seriously I would have to ask questions. When is the monarchy returning? The Nazis take over in '33 Hindenburg dies in '36 the war starts in '39 Wilhelm dies in '40 Nazi Germany fall in '45 (I think these are all correct). When does the monarchy return? Wouldn't the more reasonable hypothetical be "what if the monarchy never left"? Why are the Germans bringing back the monarchy? What do they expect? Does mass politics just go away? What power does the monarchy have? It's a lot to take in.


Ok_Squirrel259

That's a lot of good questions.


idevenkmyname

Thanks. History hypotheticals are always hard for a lot of reasons. In this case I think it's difficult because it has the Germans going back to a system that they blamed for their terrible position. A lot of Germans blamed the Kaiser and other politicians of the time for losing the war, getting a bad deal after the war, and the general sense that Germany had been screwed over. Not only does it not fit with what an average German would think or want but the politics of that time probably wouldn't accept a monarchy. The politics of 1870s Germany is very different from 1920s 30s or 40s Germany in that it was more tumultuous and the underclasses were more involved. It would be like going to ancient Egypt and trying to convince the Pharaoh to create a constitutional Republic. He doesn't really have any reasons to think that's a workable, a good idea, it doesnt benefit him, or reinforce anything he cares about.